RULE 39,SEC.

6, RULES OF COURT

FERNANDO FAJARDO v. RODOLFO QUITALIG

A.M. NO. P-02-1535; March 28, 2003

Panganiban, J.:

DOCTRINE: As frontline officials of the justice system,sheriffs must always strive to

maintain public trust in the performance of their duties. Hence, they must see to it
that the final stage in the litigation process is completed without unnecessary delay.

The sheriff is primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court
processes and writs originating from the court and its branches, including such as
may be properly delegated to him by other courts.

FACTS:

Sheriff Rodolfo Quitalig was charged by Reverend Fernando Fajardo with conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and/or dereliction of duty.

Complainant filed a case of ejectment against Datuin. Fernando (Complainant) won.

The decision was appealed to the RTC but was dismissed. The decision became final
and executory. Complainant claimed that after the Writ of Execution was served,
defendant (Datuin) asked for a period of 2 weeks for her to remove her property.
After 2 weeks he went to Sheriff Quitalig so that the Writ shall be implemented. In
executing the Writ, respondent did not do anything except to ask Defendant Datuin
to bring out her personal properties. In addition a TRO was issued according to
respondent.

The Office of the Court Administrator found Respondent to have been negligent in
the performance of his duty as a sheriff. The writ was issued on March 7, 2000 and
served on March 9, 2000. The TRO did not ripen into an injunction. The writ was only
implemented only on August 24, 2000 which was more than 4 months.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE SHERIFF WAS REMISS IN HIS DUTY IN IMPLEMENTING THE
WRIT OF EXECUTION.

RULING:

YES.

The SC agreed with the findings of the OCA. Respondent only enforced the Writ
dated March 7, 2000 only on August 24, 2000. Respondent should have immediately
implemented and made a return of the Writ after duly serving it upon the Defendant
on March 9, 2000.
He is guilty of dereliction of his duty as a sheriff. He should have immediately
reported to the MTCC that he was unable to enforce the Writ because another court
has issued a TRO. His failure to make a return of a writ within the required period is
nonfeasance.